GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996 to 11 Jun 1996
There are 9 messages totalling 274 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. M: SUI Olympic Trials
2. Trnava Intl.
3. RSG: FRA Champs.
4. Focus on coaches, not athletes
5. GYMN-L Digest - 5 Jun 1996 to 6 Jun 1996 - Special issue
6. Trent Dimas
8. GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996 - Special issue
9. GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:05:46 -0400
Subject: M: SUI Olympic Trials
The SUI Olympic Trials (M) were held over the weekend --
1. Michael Engeler 112.275
2. Li Donghua 112.250
3. Erich Wanner 111.050
4. Felipe Andres 109.050
5. Martin Banzer 108.250
I think the top 3 men will compete in Atlanta. Li received highest score,
9.825, for PH.
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:13:08 -0400
Subject: Trnava Intl.
The 28th Intl. Gymnastics Festival of Trnava (Slovakia) was held over the
weekend. Sixty-six gymnasts from 13 countries took part:
1. Yiri Firt (CZE) 55.30
2. Golikov (RUS) 55.15
3. Herbrich (GER) 53.50
1. Mavric (SLO) 36.625
2. Tonkovicova (SVK) 36.400
3. Hyett (CAN) 36.125
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:09:57 -0400
Subject: RSG: FRA Champs.
The FRA Champs. (RSG) were held over the weekend in Thiais --
1. Serrano 39.650
2. Villeneuve 38.050
3. Firmin 37.875
4. Stepanoff 36.725
5. Lefebvre 35.900
Ribbon: 1. Serrano 10.0; 2. Villeneuve 9.525; 3. Stepanoff 9.400
Rope: 1. Serrano 10.0; 2. Villeneuve 9.575; 3. Firmin 9.525
Ball: 1. Serrano 10.0; 2. Villeneuve 9.675; 3. Firmin 9.500
Clubs: 1. Serrano 10.0; 2. Villeneuve 9.550; 3. Firmin 9.525
(Yes, Serrano got 10 in every EF...)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:17:18 CST
Subject: Re: Focus on coaches, not athletes
"The way NBC miked the coaches during the broadcast of the women's
>nationals was more than just annoying -- I found it insulting as
>well. I can't recall any other sports broadcast that has placed so much
>emphasis on the coach *during* the athlete's performance."
WELL-SAID Mary Lynne!!! I agree totally, but couldn't word it the way you
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:39:49 -0400
Subject: Re: GYMN-L Digest - 5 Jun 1996 to 6 Jun 1996 - Special issue
In a message dated 96-06-06 01:01:30 EDT, you write:
> I hear from confidental sources that one athlete will be given the Deion
>treatment at the Georgia Dome come July. Remember Deion Sanders and the
No. I haven't got the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. Should
(I also have to say that I'm beginning to loathe the phrase "confidential
sources" - especially because I just waded through fifteen minutes of deep,
dark, but unsubstantiated accusations about Bela on AOL's gymnastics board,
which I usually don't frequent. Today's trip made it obvious why. I would
hope this isn't a similar exhibition.)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:13:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Trent Dimas
At the end of the men's AA, there was a short clip of Trent Dimas mouthing
(in slow motion) " It's over ". What? I didn't even know he was at trials.
Can anyone tell me what happened?
Trent had a rough 2 days of competition. He ended up 31st with a 103.425.
He competed in the finals on high bar, but fell on a geinger (sp?).
However, his back to back Kovacs were awesome!
He is basically retired from the sport now, but may go on tour. I am sure
he will be successful in whatever he decides to do.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 06:13:40 GMT
Quick impressions from Nationals-
1.US men as hopeless as ever. I see undertrained, basic-free, basement
level difficulty totally oblivious to their real placement in the world.
Macready is doing a highbar set at 1985 difficulty(and because of his great
form, I actually like him). Not really fair to single him out, because
there are so many examples. Wilson does seem to have a good level of diff.,
but are ohio state gymnasts genetically incapable of pointing their feet?
It is a shame that the one hardworking guy we seem to have, Rothlesberger,
has no one to back him up. I'm amazed at all the comments about Bill Roth's
"surprising" breakdown. Has this guy ever hit 6 for 6 in his entire life?
It was totally expected, as he seems to be incapable of taking gym
seriously enough to compete at a high level. Considering the amount of
funding so many of these guys are getting, I would expect a higher level of
seriousness and a better result for the money.
2. Girls were very encouraging. Yes, the tension was heavy and there were
falls, but it just reflects the seriousness of these girls, and their
understanding that any of 13-14 of them have a real shot at making the
team. We have never had this kind of depth before, and it bodes well for
our team medal chances.
3. Amazing how much Dom Moc. resembles Kim Z at this stage-the same leg
wrappings, overzealous hyping(obviously with Bela's permission), low
difficulty, and sloppy form. At least Kim had a proven international
reputation. The new floor music is actually appropriate, but the
choreography is still a nightmare. Hopefully she will at least be healthier
4. JC Phelps is a joy. A nice kid, with a nice coach, a nice technique,
nice difficulty, just nice. A real pleasure.
5. Dom Dawes is amazing, I still think a real AA threat for Atlanta. Really
great difficulty, originality, choreography, straight knees, and one of the
old ones-all plusses in my book. Very happy for her comeback. In fact it's
encouraging that all the old guard looked so good-sends the right message
of respect for maturity and quality.
6. I can't say enough about Kristi Powell. The great joy she brings to
every event, the beautiful placement and positioning of her body(just
watching her lunge and arch on floor is an education), the Chinese style
bar work, the powerful vaults, the wonderful beam choreography-please may
this girl make the team-we need to feature this kind of quality in a
I'm going to Boston for the trials, and really looking forward to them.
You'll be able to cut the tension with a knife!
All for now,
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:14:00 -0700
Subject: Re: GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996 - Special issue
I'm really sorry if this is an ignorant question to ask and everyone
knows the answer except me, but do the Nationals score count for the
women towards making the Olympic team?
No, the scores at Nationals do not count toward making the olympic team for
the women. Nationals qualified the gymnasts for the olympic trials (top
14). At the trials their scores will count 100% to qualify them for the
And if not, then why do the mens count?
I believe that the decisions for chosing the men's and women's teams are
made by different people.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 02:58:05 -0400
Subject: Re: GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996
In a message dated 96-06-10 11:45:02 EDT, Kris writes:
> ... it is not to praise US mens gymnastics. We are so far behind the
>Nations in the world it is sad. For someone like John Mcready to place
>third is a sad. He would not be even the alternate on any other respectable
>team i.e. China, Belarus, or Russia.
>I know this all sounds harsh and unpatriotic, but it is reality.
> The US program for mens gymnastics lacks the ability to produce an
>AA gold medalist. The only time the US mens team has done well is when the
>Olympics were Boycotted. The US needs to scap the current JO and senior
>programs which make it easier for gymnasts to get higher scores ( i.e.
>developmental D's in JO) and get rid of the politics and judge straight FIG
>code gymnastics and let the best gymnast win. None of this protesting and
>getting back .4 of a point.
I think that your predictions and analysis are way off base. It
certainly is NOT reality. While we may not have a glowing superstar (and
even that remains to be seen; certainly Blaine Wilson has the potential to
explode upon the International scene, as do John Roethlisberger and several
of the others), this team will be solid and have far more depth than we have
seen in recent years. I think that they will do well in Atlanta, and may even
provee to be a big surprise there. Even more importantly, this team is
beginning to show some of the depth that we are developing in the Junior
Program, depth that will produce solid teams for us for years to come.
Three final points:
1. Only the NCAA Program uses slightly modified rules to raise
their scores. This is because they need to look good in the eyes of a public
that sees lower scores as bad gymnastics, rather than understanding the
intricacies of the rules and how they allow for a greater separation of
scores among the gymnasts. Furthermore, despite the fact that many of our
top gymnasts compete NCAA, the NCAA Program is not geared to producing
international gymnasts, but, rather, to winning an NCAA Championship. The
USA Gymnastics Elite Program, with its special requirements and its demanding
interpretations, actually demands MORE of a gymnast than the FIG
2. The Developmental D skills in the Junior Program were not
created to make the scores higher. They were created to encourage skill
development in specific directions that are necessary for our juniors to
develop the skills that will be necessary for them to succeed in the future,
reducing the temptation to develop a lot of "cheap" D's in order to get a
score. (I will attest to this as a member of the committee that created the
developmental D's; I think I have a better idea than most of why they exist).
3. The implication that "politics" (read CHEATING) was involved in
the changing of John Roethlisberger's score is pretty strong stuff. I know
every member of the Parallel Bars panel quite well, and this implication is
both insulting and absurd when applied to them. The fact that the score was
changed by 0.4 is a pretty strong indicator that the panel deducted for a
missing requirement that was actually performed. John really struggled with
the set and it is easy to make a mistake in evaluating a missed set. I know
for a fact that Fred couldn't get 0.0001 points out of any member of that
panel through pressuring them; furthermore, he wouldn't even try to pull
that. The fact that they found an error in their judging and corrected it
should be applauded, not criticized.
YOU NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT IMPLYING THAT A JUDGE OR JUDGES WOULD
CHEAT. You are way out of line here.
End of GYMN-L Digest - 10 Jun 1996 to 11 Jun 1996